Hot answers tagged

16

As a add-on answer to amend what @amon explained in his answer: That is the point of releasing a library under GPL: Any programme which wants to make use of it also needs to be distributed under terms of the GPL. For most practical purposes, a ready-built programme is always a derivative of the libraries it makes use of and thus the distributed binary must ...


7

It is pretty clear that your website, which puts different manuals side by side (and does not merger the manuals into one larger document) is an aggregate. The GPL FAQ are pretty clear that what you are planning to do would be OK if it was put on a CD-ROM. Your website is not much different in terms of making things available, so what is OK for a CD-ROM or ...


6

In the opinion of the FSF, you could only distribute your software under the terms of the GPL. Your software as a whole includes the GPL-covered library and is thus derived from the library. The GPL triggers conditions both on modification and on distribution. But modification is not just about editing the library's source code. The GPL-3.0 defines: To “...


5

The requirement to keep the copyright notices intact is to ensure that people cannot make an (implied) false claim of authorship by listing only themselves in the copyrights when actually they built upon the work of others. The requirement to keep the license notices intact is to inform the downstream recipients of the rights they get with regards to the ...


3

The principle is universal, in the sense that any licence that tries to place restrictions on how you can use what copyright law defines as a derivative work will be limited by how copyright law defines derivative work, and the reach of such licences will therefore be co-extensive. The FSF FAQ admits that it uses the legal boundary when it writes "This ...


1

We have to look at the different versions of GPL separately. In GPL v2 you find this sentence: "If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not ...


1

No, you cannot assume that the definitions and examples that have been published in relation to GPL are universal and also applicable to other licenses. If that was the case then you would see respective wording on the webpage of these other licenses. The answer to Q11 in the MPL 2.0 FAQ is pretty clear is pretty clear about your second question. The answer ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible